list_employer_managers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth prerequisite ('Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN') and the /me fallback, but does not state read-only semantics explicitly or describe return/pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the conditional parameter note. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a filtered-list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, and the key parameter default. It could add a note on what the compact summary returns versus raw, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the /me resolution note and the raw/page/per_page fields. The description's employer_id explanation largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List managers') scoped to 'an employer account', which is clearly distinct from the singular sibling get_employer_manager. However, it never names that sibling or any other alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real guidance for the employer_id parameter (omit it to resolve from /me), which tells the agent how to call the tool in the common authenticated case. But it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like get_employer_manager or get_employer, and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.